Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 645 posts

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#161

Post by pimlottc »

234dd57d2c8db wrote: post #121
Spellman wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have personally asked an individual why they don't trust snopes. Their claim is that it's a Democrat rag towel and shill. I then ask, then what fact-checker would you trust? Their response: None of them. Congratulations. We've reached a point, for this individual, where "facts" as decided in the common forum are suspect and the only thing they trust is themselves (and whatever non-Mainstream Media they listen to).…

Have you done any research at all on snopes? I just spent 5 minutes on google and found that one of snope's main "fact-checkers" is Kim Lacapria. She used to write for a blog called "The Inquisitor", a site known for posting bad news stories, similar to the right-wing Alex Jones programme. They have published fake quotes and stories without doing research: http://www.inquisitr.com/670091/retraction-and-apology-to-ro.…

Come on. You've highlighted one staff member as having once mentioned having a personal political leaning (like most people do) and that she once worked at a blog with a tarnished reputation and spun that into implying Snopes is untrustworthy. I'm sure you could meet this extremely low bar of "proof" for practically any news organization.

If you really want to present a case of bias, find some real evidence. Specific articles with specific instances of false or misleading information. Otherwise, you're just sowing doubt by casting aspersions based on vague associations.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#162

Post by dasil003 »

Bud wrote: post #116
dasil003 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telling people who aren't aligned to with the liberal intelligentsia to fuck off is exactly what got us in the current mess. Most people are reasonable, but when the reasonable and rational media ignores their issues, we leave the door open to demagogues and dictators. How else could a silver spoon like Donald Trump ever claim to represent the everyman?

I think you're misinterpreting me, and also distorting my words significantly, which I object to. I didn't say we should tell people "who aren't aligned with the liberal intelligentsia" to fuck off. I was speaking narrowly about lawyers from places like Breitbart; i.e., the kinds of folks who have been trying to apply pressure to Facebook and making accusations. NOT the general population.

Sorry, I apologize as I definitely was using your comment as more of a general soapbox than directly responding. Upvoted.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#163

Post by rufus_2 »

randyrand wrote: post #60
youdounderstand wrote: post #12

Just stop using aggregators. Pay for real news sources that hire actual investigative journalists.

I do. Now how do we convince everyone else?

Show them the DNC Leaks - they'll inspire trust for the traditional media in anyone.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#164

Post by throwawy64 »

btilly wrote: post #11

This article criticizes Facebook for firing the human editors that had been keeping things sane. However they were pushed to that by accusations of bias in the right-wing media. Accusations that looked likely to lead to a Congressional investigation. See, for example, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/279361-top-republican-d... . Now they are in a situation where they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. A…

The Filter Bubble Ted talk is what motivated me to dump social media.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s

Gone are my Facebook, G+, Reddit accounts. I have a Twitter which I curate manually with numerous feeds from all over. I generally look at content like links first then read the Twitter discussion if any.

I treat posting as a personal catharsis anymore, and use throwaway accounts. IMO my online opinions are going to get lost in the crush so why bother curating an identity. One that just creates a signal trail for advertising and snoopers?

I talk to the people in my life more instead. These have been conscious decisions on my part and honestly I think I'm mentally happier and less frustrated "at the world" for it.

MMS is good enough for sharing pics with grandma and grandpa. Though I've asked them to keep most off social media. It's too creepy having the world ogle my kids.

They don't like it but abide. IMO despite being my mom she's old and has less life left than my kids. Nothing to worry about by posting her life on Facebook

My kids on the other hand have their whole lives ahead of them. I would rather it not be broadcast without their consent. If they get older and decide to go all Jayden Smith or Paris Hilton on social media so be it.

But these services are not what humanity needs to progress. They are today's fascination. And I am not into it. So fuck em

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#166

Post by nickodell »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #75

In corporate speak "misinformation" is defined as "any information that doesn't support our narrative". Certainly it is the goal of Facebook, the government, and every other large media corporation to control the flow of information. You need look no farther then Obama's recent statement that news needs to be "curated" by government appointed gatekeepers, to filter out all that pesky information that doesn't jive wit…

Do you mind linking to where Obama said that? The closest I can find is this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-decries-wild-west-media-lan...

>"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.

Why do you think that the curation is going to be done by the government or by government appointed gatekeepers?

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#167

Post by r00fus »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #151
guelo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lead to a Congressional investigation. That really seems like "abridging the freedom of speech" to me. Constitutional conservatives sure love pushing the limits of the constitution when it inconveniences them. But, you know, the election is over so now that the right has total control we must all put aside our differences and work together.

It is kind of Orwellian to claim an investigation of suppression of speech is "abridging the freedom of speech." Nonetheless, it isn't the government's business, what Facebook does with its feed, and constitutional conservatives should recognize that. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/279498-some-conservativ...

The original "bias squad" was not a first amendment issue. Facebook isn't the government (despite their incredible reach).

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#168

Post by robbrown451 »

cm3 wrote: post #139

I'm still waiting for the day that there's a responsible entity that only ever publishes things when they're 100% certain and is willing to bet their freedom (going to prison) on it. But given how information and influencing of opinions is a market and means control of the population, I'm afraid this won't happen with official support, and only be seen as the crazy lunatics news agency that publishes stuff a week or…

That's scary. 100% certain? Nothing is 100% certain.

So they can't even say "it's likely to rain tomorrow"? This doesn't seem thought through.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#169

Post by ThrustVectoring »

ethbro wrote: post #147
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That, or a public reaction to their product (ie, clickbait fatigue - Facebook gets really good at local optimization for the most engaging news posts but creates a news feed that convinces people that Facebook as a whole isn't worthwhile). It basically needs to be serious enough to overwhelm the internal incentives of maximizing key performance indicators.

I think there's the global maximum vs local maxima argument in favor of doing something too. Why do people ultimately spend time on Facebook? I would say they don't do so because of micro-optimized KPI targeting: they do so because they feel time on Facebook is valuable and makes them happy. If Facebook can't deliver increases in that, then optimizations only take them so far.

Yup. There's definitely some Goodhart's Law going on here as well. Micro-optimized KPI targeting is an inexact measure of feeling like ones time on Facebook is valuable.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#170

Post by pinaceae »

btilly wrote: post #11

This article criticizes Facebook for firing the human editors that had been keeping things sane. However they were pushed to that by accusations of bias in the right-wing media. Accusations that looked likely to lead to a Congressional investigation. See, for example, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/279361-top-republican-d... . Now they are in a situation where they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. A…

FB would need to abandon the algo-driven feed altogether. yes, manual forwarding is bad, but that existed in the email days.

nowadays you get all that suggested content which is driven by your past behavior, acting as a giant amplifier.

to go back to something idlewords is harping about - all of that is possible because of the persistent storage of user data. kill the deep profiles, kill the tracking, only use what the user directly, willingly entered.

in SV speak: utter heresy.

Post reply on HN